GDT: Ram Tough

[SShoe]

Not sure what UK's policies are, but their attendance was down 28% at one point earlier this year.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2021/12/09/kentucky-basketball-attendance-rupp-arena-down-28-homestand/6445649001/

Sports attendance is also down nationally this past year and many sports fans say they aren't comfortable attending. Secondary ticket sales for NHL and NBA also dropped more for teams with vaccine/negative test mandates.

https://morningconsult.com/2021/12/21/nba-nhl-attendance-down/

Some of it could be the COVID policies, but some of it is also just people being cautious/scared.  

[dennis_w]

7 minutes ago, wgstl said:

I wish they would so we could know, but there’s no reason for them to do that .

could validate their position if the cancellations are small

[A10Ref]

7 minutes ago, SShoe said:

Not sure what UK's policies are, but their attendance was down 28% at one point earlier this year. Sports attendance was also noted to be down 15% overall this year.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2021/12/09/kentucky-basketball-attendance-rupp-arena-down-28-homestand/6445649001/

Some of it could be the COVID policies, but some of it is also just people being cautious.  

I think the larger decrease in attendance is the reality that people's routines and preferences have changed during the last (almost) two years.

[hmart23]

15 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

And here I thought Guy Philips was the sole reason for the dip in attendance. 

Definitely isn't helping

[BrettJollyComedyHour]

15 hours ago, willie said:

You do know Guy hasn’t been there the last 2 games. 

If it doesn't strain his schedule too much, I'm in favor of Brian Kelly doing both the men's and women's games, thought he did a great job on Saturday. 

[Deutschkind]

1 hour ago, SShoe said:

Not sure what UK's policies are, but their attendance was down 28% at one point earlier this year.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2021/12/09/kentucky-basketball-attendance-rupp-arena-down-28-homestand/6445649001/

Sports attendance is also down nationally this past year and many sports fans say they aren't comfortable attending. Secondary ticket sales for NHL and NBA also dropped more for teams with vaccine/negative test mandates.

https://morningconsult.com/2021/12/21/nba-nhl-attendance-down/

Some of it could be the COVID policies, but some of it is also just people being cautious/scared.  

I believe they have a mask requirement. But if photos from my friend who's a UK fan, it's not policed at all

[BIG BILL FAN]

3 hours ago, RUBillsFan said:

No doubt low attendance is bad for the program, but you haven't presented anything other than anecdotal evidence of yourself and couple other MBMs who are unhappy with the vaccine mandates to show that the vaccine mandates are the reason for poor attendance.

and you as usual, presented nothing.....it seems like anecdotal is the new go to word when someone doesn't want to discuss the facts....here is some more anecdotal thoughts, treating a large percentage of those who have supported your programs for decades like crap is not a smart business decision....d1 college sports are driven by money....

[BIG BILL FAN]

2 hours ago, rgbilliken said:

@BIG BILL FAN  i don't think anyone is disputing that vaccine mandates are one reason attendance is lower. It obviously is causing some fans not to attend who would've attended otherwise. 

People are just pointing out that the reverse is also true that there are some people who wouldn't attend before the vaccine/negative test requirement who now feel more comfortable. 

That's OK if you disagree with the second group but they certainly exist whether you agree or not. The point being it's more likely to be a combination of factors, many of which are related to COVID, than SOLELY the vaccine/negative test requirement leading to low attendance. 

but you seem to be missing the point.....the university may not have any control over Covid,  BUT THEY DO HAVE CONTROL OVER INANE MANDATES AND POLICIES.... that's what you call an unforced error...why compound a problem needlessly????

[DeSmetBilliken]

2 hours ago, A10Ref said:

I think the larger decrease in attendance is the reality that people's routines and preferences have changed during the last (almost) two years.

THIS. My big talking point lately is that the pandemic was a forced opportunity for a lot of people to consider what their priorities were. There were probably some people who had season tickets for a number of years and did so as a routine, and some sort of pause in that routine might have caused some people to decide that they like the ability to not plan their schedules in the winter around 1-2 basketball games per week. Not directly related to SLU basketball, but I know people who started spending much more of their time at their vacation homes in another state when they realized that they could do that. Those people are going to fewer games, and maybe dropped their season tickets. 

[RUBillsFan]

10 minutes ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

and you as usual, presented nothing.....it seems like anecdotal is the new go to word when someone doesn't want to discuss the facts....here is some more anecdotal thoughts, treating a large percentage of those who have supported your programs for decades like crap is not a smart business decision....d1 college sports are driven by money....

These aren't facts.  You have no evidence that the vaccine mandate has had a significant negative impact on attendance.  3 people saying they don't like it doesn't prove anything.  That's 3 out of 6,500 or so average who attended games pre-pandemic.  You don't need a masters in statistics to understand that's not statistically significant.  I don't need to present anything, I'm just calling you out on trying to pass BS as "facts".  Other MBMs have provided evidence that attendance at most sporting events is down across the board regardless of COVID polices.  Heck, attendance at SLU games was dismal before the vaccine mandate went into effect.

4 minutes ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

but you seem to be missing the point.....the university may not have any control over Covid,  BUT THEY DO HAVE CONTROL OVER INANE MANDATES AND POLICIES.... that's what you call an unforced error...why compound a problem needlessly????

You seem to be arguing that the University should have different policy than Enterprise Center (Blues), Peabody Opera House, The Pageant, Delmar Hall, Off Broadway, Powell Hall, The Fox Theatre, etc.  How is Chaifetz Arena / SLU unique from these other venues / organizations that they should have a different policy?

[HenryB]

3 hours ago, rgbilliken said:

@BIG BILL FAN  i don't think anyone is disputing that vaccine mandates are one reason attendance is lower. It obviously is causing some fans not to attend who would've attended otherwise. 

People are just pointing out that the reverse is also true that there are some people who wouldn't attend before the vaccine/negative test requirement who now feel more comfortable. 

That's OK if you disagree with the second group but they certainly exist whether you agree or not. The point being it's more likely to be a combination of factors, many of which are related to COVID, than SOLELY the vaccine/negative test requirement leading to low attendance. 

I don't think anyone, including BBF, says the ONLY, reason is mandates. As I have stated, SLU has every right to make any policy they want. But surely you agree that their decisions in many instances are inconsistent, confusing, illogical, and often hypocritical.  For example, I refuse to show my papers and so SLU says I can not enter.  Ok, it's their decision.  They then say, however, if I show up with proof I don't have the virus, then I can enter. How does that make sense? The vaccinated can also receive and spread the virus. So with that logic, why isn't EVERYONE required to provide a clear test? Of course, there is no logic to it. So many decisions they make appear to be for disingenuous reasons as BBF and others have stated before. I could play this phony game and jump through the hoops but as a matter of principle I choose not too. Like I keep saying, they can do what they like. But as a ticket holder since the days of the old Kiel Auditorium, I think it's crap.

[hmart23]

31 minutes ago, HenryB said:

I don't think anyone, including BBF, says the ONLY, reason is mandates. As I have stated, SLU has every right to make any policy they want. But surely you agree that their decisions in many instances are inconsistent, confusing, illogical, and often hypocritical.  For example, I refuse to show my papers and so SLU says I can not enter.  Ok, it's their decision.  They then say, however, if I show up with proof I don't have the virus, then I can enter. How does that make sense? The vaccinated can also receive and spread the virus. So with that logic, why isn't EVERYONE required to provide a clear test? Of course, there is no logic to it. So many decisions they make appear to be for disingenuous reasons as BBF and others have stated before. I could play this phony game and jump through the hoops but as a matter of principle I choose not too. Like I keep saying, they can do what they like. But as a ticket holder since the days of the old Kiel Auditorium, I think it's crap.

I mean if we're talking about logic, the science shows it is more difficult for vaccinated individuals to spread the virus than those that are unvaccinated. I don't disagree with everything you're saying and omicron is much easier to spread. There is some weight to the decision even though it isn't 100% infallible.

[hmart23]

31 minutes ago, HenryB said:

I don't think anyone, including BBF, says the ONLY, reason is mandates. As I have stated, SLU has every right to make any policy they want. But surely you agree that their decisions in many instances are inconsistent, confusing, illogical, and often hypocritical.  For example, I refuse to show my papers and so SLU says I can not enter.  Ok, it's their decision.  They then say, however, if I show up with proof I don't have the virus, then I can enter. How does that make sense? The vaccinated can also receive and spread the virus. So with that logic, why isn't EVERYONE required to provide a clear test? Of course, there is no logic to it. So many decisions they make appear to be for disingenuous reasons as BBF and others have stated before. I could play this phony game and jump through the hoops but as a matter of principle I choose not too. Like I keep saying, they can do what they like. But as a ticket holder since the days of the old Kiel Auditorium, I think it's crap.

I mean if we're talking about logic, the science shows it is more difficult for vaccinated individuals to spread the virus than those that are unvaccinated. I don't disagree with everything you're saying and omicron is much easier to spread. There is some weight to the decision even though it isn't 100% infallible.

[dennis_w]

4 minutes ago, hmart23 said:

I mean if we're talking about logic, the science shows it is more difficult for vaccinated individuals to spread the virus than those that are unvaccinated. I don't disagree with everything you're saying and omicron is much easier to spread. There is some weight to the decision even though it isn't 100% infallible.

the science changes constantly not sure you are correct anymore, high percentage are now vaxxed and omicron is spreading at a record pace. what is the science anymore?

[HenryB]

20 minutes ago, hmart23 said:

I mean if we're talking about logic, the science shows it is more difficult for vaccinated individuals to spread the virus than those that are unvaccinated. I don't disagree with everything you're saying and omicron is much easier to spread. There is some weight to the decision even though it isn't 100% infallible.

You may be right but that is really splitting hairs. But if we are using percentages, couldn't we say, no more concessions because it is more likely the virus is spread by eating? If they really believed masks worked they would eject those not wearing them. Of course we could also go back to just banning fans altogether. 

[AnkielBreakers]

4 minutes ago, HenryB said:

You may be right but that is really splitting hairs. But if we are using percentages, couldn't we say, no more concessions because it is more likely the virus is spread by eating? If they really believed masks worked they would eject those not wearing them. Of course we could also go back to just banning fans altogether. 

They just need to ban mouths, not fans.

[HenryB]

1 minute ago, AnkielBreakers said:

They just need to ban mouths, not fans.

You are ahead of your time...probably announced next week 

[jonny karate]

9 minutes ago, HenryB said:

You may be right but that is really splitting hairs. But if we are using percentages, couldn't we say, no more concessions because it is more likely the virus is spread by eating? If they really believed masks worked they would eject those not wearing them. Of course we could also go back to just banning fans altogether. 

Ejecting fans for not wearing a mask would provide some great entertainment in the concourse. Could have used that entertainment saturday during the first half. 

[rgbilliken]

1 hour ago, HenryB said:

I don't think anyone, including BBF, says the ONLY, reason is mandates. As I have stated, SLU has every right to make any policy they want. But surely you agree that their decisions in many instances are inconsistent, confusing, illogical, and often hypocritical.  For example, I refuse to show my papers and so SLU says I can not enter.  Ok, it's their decision.  They then say, however, if I show up with proof I don't have the virus, then I can enter. How does that make sense? The vaccinated can also receive and spread the virus. So with that logic, why isn't EVERYONE required to provide a clear test? Of course, there is no logic to it. So many decisions they make appear to be for disingenuous reasons as BBF and others have stated before. I could play this phony game and jump through the hoops but as a matter of principle I choose not too. Like I keep saying, they can do what they like. But as a ticket holder since the days of the old Kiel Auditorium, I think it's crap.

Thanks...I don't 100% agree with everything you said but now I get what you are saying.

[Gremio14]

19 minutes ago, jonny karate said:

Ejecting fans for not wearing a mask would provide some great entertainment in the concourse. Could have used that entertainment saturday during the first half. 

I estimate 50% of the fans in attendance either have no mask or wear said mask around their throats.  And, as someone stated earlier, there is no way the Chaifetz employees are paid enough to challenge the mask violators. Would make more sense to me to maintain the vaccine policy (at least this can be effectively monitored) and void the mask mandate - the latter is certainly folly at this point….

[Old guy]

 

I think that in some minor ways they are making some changes that benefit the program. For example, Thatch did not play the last game because he tested positive. This is good, for it means that other members of the team are available to play and only Thatch is kept isolated. I think this may lead to less postponements.

About the Chaifetz attendance and the problem it poses with revenue, there is a fairly simple way to minimize losses or reach a low level of profitabilty if all else fails. That requires to cut expenses down to the bone. Allow only the teams and the TV/media crews in the arena. This minimizes expenses, and may provide a low level of profitabilitiy for the Chaifetz  to limp along until the time when all restrictions become unnecessary.

 

 

 

[dennis_w]

is revenue from tv enough to keep all the programs afloat? does anyone know the answer?

[cheeseman]

20 minutes ago, Gremio14 said:

I estimate 50% of the fans in attendance either have no mask or wear said mask around their throats.  And, as someone stated earlier, there is no way the Chaifetz employees are paid enough to challenge the mask violators. Would make more sense to me to maintain the vaccine policy (at least this can be effectively monitored) and void the mask mandate - the latter is certainly folly at this point….

By requiring masks even if you don't enforce it at least you are telling those who want to wear a mask that it is OK as well as those only need a little encouragement.  I have to say that around my seats people really do adhere to it.  When people see those around them wearing you at least have the possibility of peer pressure helping.  At this point it seems that having the mask rule or not doesn't seem to be a problem - those who don't want to comply don't and those who do do.

[dennis_w]

13 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

By requiring masks even if you don't enforce it at least you are telling those who want to wear a mask that it is OK as well as those only need a little encouragement.  I have to say that around my seats people really do adhere to it.  When people see those around them wearing you at least have the possibility of peer pressure helping.  At this point it seems that having the mask rule or not doesn't seem to be a problem - those who don't want to comply don't and those who do do.

It is only a suggestion then and not a rule, enforce it or dont have it. dont need to go to a bb game to get "peer" pressure 

[brianstl]

5 hours ago, A10Ref said:

I think the larger decrease in attendance is the reality that people's routines and preferences have changed during the last (almost) two years.

I think their is sizable percentage of fans across the country that got used to watching home games at their home.  While they still might have season tickets, they might now only decide to go to select games and decide to save the money they would have spent on parking/concessions.  Large screen HD TVs make watching at home much more attractive.

It will be interesting how sports programs address this reality going forward.  They are dependent on Media rights money more than ever, so they can’t just stop broadcasting home games.  They are going to have to find a way to make games a more attractive event to attend in person.  I think we will see smaller venues become more common.